Slashdot Mirror
Apache 2.0 vs. IIS
TonyG writes: "According to an item on InternetNews, the impending release of Apache 2.0 could very well mean the demise of IIS. Interestingly, the article asserts that Microsoft have already given up on IIS, the proof being its absence in XP Home and its non-standard presence in XP Pro. Apache.Net? Sounds catchy..." That's a silly argument by the internetnews.com writer - IIS isn't in the Home edition because Microsoft wants to charge more for "server" operating systems, not because they're "admitting defeat". But it's a decent look at the upcoming Apache 2.0.
It is incorrect to say MS has given up on IIS. XP Pro/Home are not meant to serve Web content they are meant for business or home users respectively.
.Net) will come in four different versions
.NET Web Server - for Web serving and hosting .NET Standard Server - for file and printer sharing etc. .NET Enterprise Server - for applications services, Web services .NET Datacenter Server .NET Web Server
The next server version of windows (Windows
Windows
Windows
Windows
Windows
Had MS given up on IIS they would have a seperate Windows
You have to admit that both IIS and Apache are both good webservers, its just that IIS gets a lot of flak for having holes in it that admins were not quick to patch, but at the same time Microsoft wasnt too quick on telling admins to patch it OR published it that broadly.. BUT IIS to some people is easier to use, so hence the easiness facto makes it attractive to a lot of people..
Apache on the other hand is also a good webserver, its been tested pretty throughly and doesnt seem to have that many holes, ( I cant say it does or doesnt because I havent looked ) but its also pretty intuitive to use for people that use Unix, so until the Unix population grows bigger than the windows population, IIS is going to be a tad more popular among that crowd..
I applaud microsoft for moving it out of the mainstream windows, it creates less of a hole to fix, and it decreases the risk of having another CodeRed type of thing happen again where users dont know that their computer is doing something.. but yeah, microsoft is tryign to make more money off it too.. this shouldnt surprise anybody
Are you kidding? Dude, it's totally just my 2 cents, but I respectfully disagree with you.
I work with both daily - well apache 1.3, i haven't used 2. And yeah, if the MS gui control actually worked all the time, and really did what it said it did -- that would be nice. And i might respect IIS.
IIS has some neat features (like the Apache 2.0 features as far as application pooling, etc.) but I have never seen a server go down so easy as an IIS server. Ours restart themselves every few days, and we don't even really get that much traffic. High KB volume per-session, not many sessions. Maybe we're just a corner case or whatever.
I find their admin utilities to be absolutely frustrating, in that I often make a change, and then open up the panel later, and it's back to the "default" setting. I'll take my httpd.conf any day.
"I think there is a world market for, maybe, five computers." __ IBM Chairman, 1943 __
Reading these first few posts, I have to wonder - have you tried Apache lately? The latest 1.3 builds use the same installer as most other Windows programs. After a few mouse clicks, you've got an operational (and SECURE) Web server.
I'm a sysadmin on an Apache/Linux server, but about 6 months ago I installed Apache on Win2K. Having had past experience with IIS 4, I was pleasantly surprised at how easily Apache/Windows was set up. You may need to tweak it if you want to add certain functionality, but this is true of IIS as well.
#DeleteChrome
buy a Cobalt appliance or it's like ... or just install Webmin or something similar for free. Both of those are easier to manage than IIS for a server dishing out many different web sites.
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
Unless they are planing to replace it... no one knows
... this is public knowledge
They are planning on rewriting it
Hogsback
Indeed, directly from the bastion of evil.
Wax-Museum Fire Results In Hundreds Of New Danny DeVito Statues
IIS and Apache aren't the only one in the market. There are a lot of other very interesting web servers, especially Zeus.
Zeus is a non-forking server (at least for static pages). It's extremely fast, it performs even better than thttpd, while being more secure and with plenty of features. A single server running Zeus can easily replace 3 servers running Apache with the same content.
Zeus has an excellent web-based administration interface. The only fact that you can group sites can make you save a lot of time (group them by customers, then to disable all sites of a customer, one click is enough. No need to parse an ugly httpd.conf file) .
Zeus is designed for clustering (to add a machine to a cluster, one click is enough) .
Zeus works on a lot of operating systems (still waiting for the OpenBSD 3.0 version, though) .
Zeus supports frontpage, php, perl, etc. There's also a perl script to convert an existing Apache configuration to Zeus.
Ah yeah, Zeus isn't free software, though. Neither is IIS.
{{.sig}}
With ASP.NET (which is a sort of "extension" to IIS 5.0/5.1 for running .aspx pages), you can configure MOST of the settings for ASP.NET pages using the XML web.config file.
But since it runs within IIS, you still have to use the IIS Manager for such tasks as creating a new application directory, changing the directory security settings, or setting the default document.
Maybe it's Compaq SmartStart and the unattended setup file they create, but IIS is installed by default with Windows 2000 on compaq servers. I know because me removing it is one of the first things I do when I configure a windows 2000 server.
The Win2k Help file on IIS installation says:
"Internet Information Services 5.0 is not installed on Windows 2000 Professional by default.
Note
If you upgraded to Windows 2000, IIS 5.0 will be installed by default only if PWS was installed on your previous version of Windows."
IIS is far from dead. A good deal of .NET (namely ASP.NET) relies on IIS (although it can be implemented in any webserver, or without one at all (System.Remoting makes it possible to launch a service EXE of your own design for the purpose of automatic SOAP communication between components over HTTP without the need for a webserver of any form.)) IIS is being overhauled for this purpose, with dynamic compilers to have ASP.NET code (no longer scripted, now natively compiled and cached,) which might be why IIS of today is being downplayed. I expect this functionality to exist in full by the time the Windows.NET Servers become available, with the cheaper Web Server edition.
Also, Microsoft has added new functionality to Visual C++ 7.0 that permits an application to define a buffer overflow exception handler that will add code to the prologue (4 cycles) and epilogue (6 cycles) of every function that deals with pointers to double check the return address. If a function causes a buffer overflow in any module (this would extend to custom written ISAPI modules) IIS could catch the error, report it to the logs, and gracefully kill the thread. I'm not sure that IIS now uses this, but I wouldn't be shocked if IIS of tomorrow does.
Too bad we can't moderate articles ... even I recognize this article as a troll.
Users can moderate articles, but not on a Slash site. Go to Kuro5hin or any other Scoop site and moderate as many submitted articles as you want.
--Pinocchio
Will I retire or break 10K?
How did this get modded "Off-Topic"? The lead post states: "Interestingly, the article asserts that Microsoft have already given up on IIS" This person is factually, and a bit colorfully refuting the charge.
The reply is factual. In fact if you look at the NT 4.0 Workstation and W2K Pro licenses you'll see that it's against the license to run a web server on them (can't exceed 10 concurrent IP connections).
Remember the giant excrement-meteorological-event when MS tried to enforce the 10 connection limit in the early beta versions of NT 5.0? (The ol' 2000 name when it was going to be delivered in 98.)
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
My chief admin tools for Apache are ssh and vi. No such option on Windows. Leaving aside all other issues, Apache is easier to admin just because you can do it over a 14.4 modem at your parents' house if that's where you happen to be when you get paged. With Windows, you can VNC or PCAnywhere, neither of which is tolerable over modem. That's why I believe firmly that Windows does not belong on servers: They need a monitor.
CVS succesor Subversion, http://subversion.tigris.org currently developed by collab.net (who is also the maintainer of CVS) is also based an Webdav. Distributed repositories will be much easier to operate.
There are rumors that moving the IIS document root directory is quite complicated. Do you really have to change registry entries, without support from the GUI?
m eters\Virtual Roots) but it didn't seem to take when I checked the value in mmc.
Find the server in "my network places", right-click, select "manage", expand "internet information services", right-click "default website", select "home directory", change it in "local path".
Too much clicking on different widgets and popups and waiting for my tastes... I tried editing this in the registry (seems to be under HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\W3SVC\Para
Cobalt's approach is nice, they use mod_perl to read in a config file written by their configurator app and generate the appropriate config info. It's too bad the interface absolutely *sucks* for managing more than a couple dozen virtual sites on one box (we had one cobalt box serving up 200 sites. not fun, since the group-based security model starts to lock out the admin user after only 28 sites)
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
I'd say those are exactly the experiences I've had. At the place I work we have a box that was set up for months with IIS for the company intranet. Luckily I wasn't there for that part, as I hear that it took weeks to get it to filally work right. Now the problem is that they can't really get it to do much else. Not long after there was a linux box installed running Appache. Both the NT and linux box are needed for other things - the web server stuff is just extra baggage.
Then the word came down to me that I was to start working on the company intranet. I had no experience with IIS or Apache so it was pretty much whatever I found to be easier. With IIS I found a cute dynamically generated template from the start. The source of the pages looked like a mess of ASP stuff that I really didn't want to deal with. Actually trying to configure the thing wasn't much easier with the obscure/non descriptive names. Updating the thing didn't work very well either as the Microsoft wizards tended to break the things that were actually working.
In contrast Apache only gives you the "you're running Apache - have a nice day" page. I'm okay with config files, and I certainly found it relatively easy to setup with the well commented files. Thus the Linux side continues to grow and become more useful every day. I'm not neccesarily against IIS (although I'd never leave a server running it directly exposed to the internet), but I think it leaves a lot to be desired when compaired to the free alternative.
I'm sorry...but the person who wrote this article is very mistaken about the nature of IIS and Windows as a whole.
/. crowd has chosen to keep saying "IIS is installed by default" over and over during that time, basically in reference to NT 4 only--which, honestly, is a painfully old OS at this point in time.
First off, it's not in Home because...well...it's HOME EDITION. IIS is one of the major "features" in Professional compared to Home. You didn't see them putting IIS in WinME, did you? Didn't think so.
Second, I assume by "non-standard" he means that IIS isn't installed by default in WinXP Pro? Yeah. Time to wake up to the FUD that has perpetuated about the "default install" of IIS. Windows 2000, both Professional and Server, didn't install IIS by default either. IIS has been "optional" for almost 2 years now. Unfortunately, the general
I'm not going to claim that IIS has actually gained ground in the last few years, since I honestly can't be sure given all the conflicting reports. However, all MS's claimed increases have taken place without IIS installed by default on all current, shipping OS's. The fact that this will continue to be the case should have little to no bearing on their current position.
Now, a brand-new Apache coming out? That's news. Talk about that. There's really no need to toss in anti-MS propaganda at any possible opportunity because it just looks plain silly. (Although I'll probably be modded down for saying so.)
-Jayde
What's a sig?
I just gave up moderation to reply to this nonsense. The author attmepts to compare IIS 3 and 4 (ancient) with Apache. This would be like comparing Linux 1.0 to 2.4. There is none, and it's not fair.
First, IIS4 was written for NT 4. Even as a windows admin, I will be the first to admit that NT 4 is the most unreliable OS on the hardware that I have run. The same applies to IIS3-4. In fact they are so old, that a Gopher server is a hosting option.
Here we are in 2002. Windows 2000 and IIS5 going on Windows .NET and IIS6. IIS5 was quick and easy to install and configure. Want to run Java Servlets/JSP? Install the JRun ISAPI filter. Want to run Perl? Install ActivePerl.
For all fairness, I have tried Apache 1.3.x and it was nothing comparied to IIS5. The only thing Apache is good for, in my opinion, is to host static pages to anonymous readers on the Internet. In an intranet environment, IIS wins hands-down. The most important feature IMO is the ability to control page access with ACLs. A user can log onto a domain, access a page being served by IIS, and automatically be authenticated for that page.
Oh, did I mention that I can do all that without touching a text configuration file? I do not have to mess around with text files in which I have to edit, then restart the server.
It all depends on the kind of environment you are running. If you have a cheap box running Apache to serve pages in a non-enterprise environment, then thats fine. In an enterprise environment, the easiest, best solution is Windows/IIS. Chances are, an enterprise would be running Windows desktops in a domain. Since they would already be running Win NT/2000 Server, they would remain homogenous and serve off of IIS, regardless of claimed performance issues.
Hate to tell you this, but in NT/2K you can script essentially everything. It's pretty much always been that way. The problem is that NT admins rarely ever learn it because everything appears so GUI centric. The GUI interface is very approachable to the novice. In the long run, though, you can only go so far with the training wheels on and to properly administer an MS system/network you have to learn how the OS actually works. Unfortunately that's not covered by the MCSE requirements.
I spent 3 years as an NT admin and I can honestly state that I scripted any repetitious or large tasks I encountered. Of course most of the other admins I worked with, while fairly technically knowledgeable, seemed oblivious to the concept of scripting or programming in general. I'm not a fan of Microsoft (I don't like signing 12 NDA's to look at my OS's source) and NT/2K/XP do have some serious flaws. But it get's a bad rap for the wrong reason most of the time, and a lack of scripting support is not really one of it's failings.
IIS 6 (.Net Server) allows the metabase (where IIS keeps it's settings) to be stored in an XML file. You make a change to the XML file, it updates the metabase. You make a change to the metabase, it updates the XML file.
Very handy if you want to keep a standardised configuration backup.
or use micorosft telnet
end then when you get there realise that there aren't any text editors installed you can use so it's
copy con > file.txt
and hoping you don't typo!
And there you are sat at your friends house and you've got to install software just get in which you've got to convinve him to do
nope, gimme a computer I can control with a 9600baud gsm phone on a train or out skiing
that'll be that there unix stuff
oh and while you're there back your web server up without stopping the service
including the server side active X controls
oh, darn, you can't, you've got to reboot to unload them from memory so the kernel will unlock their disk image. How long does it take to come back up? 5 maybe 10 minutes, 20 even for a well used Exchange Server. oops forgot to set that service auto start, doh now it says something's changed and i need to reboot again.
lovely on a 14.4 modem in a hotel room at $5 a minute
I'm so glad I left all that behind.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
I think it's very doubtful that either Apache or ISS will be going anywhere, any time soon. Infact, Nothing MS makes (with the exception of all their osses but XP) is going anywhere. Don't get me wrong, Apache kicks ass, But, IIS has Microsoft and their billions of dollars of bank account. That's why it's hard to beat MS. Even the best quality sometimes loses out to piles, and piles of cash. On the other hand, Apache is one of the most easy to use and god damned powerful peices of software i've ever used. But, the poster was crazy. MS will not dump IIS for a long, long time.
The opinions in this post are ficticious. Any similarity to actual opinions, real or imagined, is purely coincidental.
Apache is installed as default with OS X.
/~
All you have to do is open the Sharing Preference, click start WebSharing (& FTP if you want) and then it's on.
You then goto Library/WebServer/Documents/ and customise index.html
You can start Apache, make a personaised page and forget about it.
Pages for individual users are
Which reminds me, I have to update my site to deal my new info later.
- Kaos games and encryption systems developer
I've been working with IIS 6 (Whistler/.Net) for over a year now, and its actually come a really long way in this release.. (duck) Alot of the positives of Apache have been built in (remarkably similar..makes you wonder) like a text based config in XML, an HTTP kernel mode listener, and some really cool isolation features. For a shared web hoster its a god-send, letting you bind a virtual server to its own process (and security context), so if a customer starts hogging you just check the PID and voila you know who's the culprit. You can also ping the worker processes/virtuals for various stats and do non-intrusive restarts. Much better than the old days of having the whole server dump hard and a reboot.
Anyways, funny they didn't mention any of that in the article.. quite the clueless writer. I'll never claim IIS is as stable, secure, or flexible as Apache, knowing first hand, but its definately better than it used to be.
While I do agree with most people here and editing httpd.conf is the way to go, there is a GUI for Apache.
I've recommended Comanche to people in #apache on efnet when they ask for an Apache GUI config tool in Windows and Linux.
Just my $0.04 (adjusted for inflation)